II.
I am to remind you of some points that have been settled in
this course of study.

1. The true
intent and meaning of the law of God has been, as I trust,
ascertained in the lectures on moral government. Let this point,
if need be, be examined by reference to those lectures.

2. We have
also seen, in those lectures, what is not, and what is implied in
entire obedience to the moral law.

3. In those
lectures, and also in the lectures on justification and
repentance, it has been shown that nothing is acceptable to God,
as a condition of justification, and of consequent salvation, but
a repentance that implies a return to full obedience to the moral
law.

4. It has
also been shown, that nothing is holiness short of full obedience,
for the time being, to the moral law.

5. It has
also been shown, that regeneration and repentance consist in the
heart's return to full obedience, for the time being, to this law.

6. We have
also examined the doctrine of depravity, and seen, that moral
depravity, or sin, consists in selfishness, and not at all in the
constitution of men; that selfishness does not consist in the
involuntary appetites, passions, and propensities, but that it
consists alone in the committal of the will to the gratification
of the propensities.

7. We have
seen that holiness consists, not at all in the constitution of
body or mind; but that it belongs, strictly, only to the will or
heart, and consists in obedience of will to the law of God, as it
lies revealed in the intellect; that it is expressed in one word,
love; that this love is identical with the entire consecration of
the whole being to the glory of God, and to the highest well-being
of the universe; or in other words, that it consists in
disinterested benevolence.

8. We have
seen that all true saints, while in a state of acceptance with
God, do actually render, for the time being, full obedience to all
the known requirements of God; that is, that they do for the time
being their whole duty--all that God, at this time, requires of
them.

9. We have
seen that this obedience is not rendered independent of the grace
of God, but is induced by the indwelling spirit of Christ received
by faith, and reigning in the heart. This fact will be more fully
elucidated in this discussion than it has been in former lectures.
A former lecture was devoted to it; but a fuller consideration of
it remains to be entered upon hereafter.

III.
Define the principal terms to be used in this discussion.

Here let me
remark, that a definition of terms in all discussions is of prime
importance. Especially is this true of this subject. I have
observed that, almost without an exception, those who have written
on this subject dissenting from the views entertained here, do so
upon the ground that they understand and define the terms
sanctification and Christian perfection differently from what we
do. Every one gives his own definition, varying materially from
others, and from what we understand by the terms; and then he goes
on professedly opposing the doctrine as inculcated here. Now this
is not only utterly unfair, but palpably absurd. If I oppose a
doctrine inculcated by another man, I am bound to oppose what he
really holds. If I misrepresent his sentiments, "I fight as one
that beateth the air." I have been amazed at the diversity of
definitions that have been given to the terms Christian
perfection, sanctification, &c.; and to witness the diversity
of opinion as to what is, and what is not, implied in these terms.
One objects wholly to the use of the term Christian perfection,
because, in his estimation, it implies this, and that, and the
other thing, which I do not suppose are at all implied in it.
Another objects to our using the term sanctification, because that
implies, according to his understanding of it, certain things that
render its use improper. Now it is no part of my design to dispute
about the use of words. I must however use some terms; and I ought
to be allowed to use Bible language in its scriptural sense, as I
understand it. And if I should sufficiently explain my meaning,
and define the sense in which I use the terms, and the sense in
which the Bible manifestly uses them, this ought to suffice. And I
beg, that nothing more or less may be understood by the language I
use, than I profess to mean by it. Others may, if they please, use
the same terms, and give a different definition of them. But I
have a right to hope and expect, if they feel called upon to
oppose what I say, that they will bear in mind my definition of
the terms, and not pretend, as some have done, to oppose my views,
while they have only differed from me in their definition of the
terms used, giving their own definition varying materially and, I
might say, infinitely from the sense in which I use the same
terms, and then arraying their arguments to prove, that according
to their definition of it, sanctification is not really attainable
in this life, when no one here or anywhere else, that I ever heard
of, pretended that, in their sense of the term, it ever was or
ever will be, attainable in this life, and I might add, or in that
which is to come.

Sanctification
is a term of frequent use in the Bible. Its simple and primary
meaning is a state of consecration to God. To sanctify is to set
apart to a holy use--to consecrate a thing to the service of God.
This is plainly both the Old and the New Testament use of the
term. The Greek word hagiazo means to sanctify, to
consecrate, or devote a person or thing to a particular,
especially to a sacred, use. This word is synonymous with the
Hebrew kaudash. This last word is used in the Old Testament
to express the same thing that is intended by the Greek
hagiazo, namely, to consecrate, devote, set apart,
sanctify, purify, make clean or pure. Hagiasmos, a
substantive from hagiazo, means sanctification, devotion,
consecration, purity, holiness.

From the
Bible use of these terms it is most manifest,--

1. That
sanctification does not imply any constitutional change, either of
soul or body. It consists in the consecration or devotion of the
constitutional powers of body and soul to God, and not in any
change wrought in the constitution itself.

2. It is also
evident from the scriptural use of the term, that sanctification
is not a phenomenon, or state of the intellect. It belongs neither
to the reason, conscience, nor understanding. In short, it cannot
consist in any state of the intellect whatever. All the states of
this faculty are purely passive states of mind; and of course, as
we have abundantly seen, holiness is not properly predicable of
them.

3. It is just
as evident that sanctification, in the scriptural and proper sense
of the term, is not a mere feeling of any kind. It is not a
desire, an appetite, a passion, a propensity, an emotion, nor
indeed any kind or degree of feeling. It is not a state or
phenomenon of the sensibility. The states of the sensibility are,
like those of the intellect, purely passive states of mind, as has
been repeatedly shown. They of course can have no moral character
in themselves.

4. The Bible
use of the term, when applied to persons, forbids the
understanding of it, as consisting in any involuntary state or
attitude of mind whatever.

5. The
inspired writers evidently used the terms which are translated by
the English word sanctify, to designate a phenomenon of the will,
or a voluntary state of mind. They used the term hagiazo in
Greek, and kaudash in Hebrew, to represent the act of
consecrating one's self, or anything else to the service of God,
and to the highest well-being of the universe. The term manifestly
not only represents an act of the will, but an ultimate act or
choice, as distinguished from a mere volition, or executive act of
the will. Thus the terms rendered sanctified are used as
synonymous with loving God with all the heart, and our neighbour
as ourselves. The Greek hagiasmos, translated by the word
sanctification, is evidently intended to express a state or
attitude of voluntary consecration to God, a continued act of
consecration; or a state of choice as distinct from a mere act of
choice, an abiding act or state of choice, a standing and
controlling preference of mind, a continuous committal of the will
to the highest well-being of God and of the universe.
Sanctification, as a state differing from a holy act, is a
standing, ultimate intention, and exactly synonymous or identical
with a state of obedience, or conformity to the law of God. We
have repeatedly seen, that the will is the executive or
controlling faculty of the mind. Sanctification consists in the
will's devoting or consecrating itself and the whole being, all we
are and have, so far as powers, susceptibilities, possessions are
under the control of the will, to the service of God, or, which is
the same thing, to the highest interests of God and of being.
Sanctification, then, is nothing more nor less than entire
obedience, for the time being, to the moral law.

Sanctification
may be entire in two senses: (1.) In the sense of present, full
obedience, or entire consecration to God; and, (2.) In the sense
of continued, abiding consecration or obedience to God. Entire
sanctification, when the terms are used in this sense, consists in
being established, confirmed, preserved, continued in a state of
sanctification or of entire consecration to God.

In this
discussion, then, I shall use the term entire sanctification to
designate a state of confirmed, and entire consecration of body,
soul, and spirit, or of the whole being to God--confirmed, not in
the sense, (1.) That a soul entirely sanctified cannot sin, but
that as a matter of fact, he does not, and will not sin. (2.) Nor
do I use the term entire sanctification as implying that the
entirely sanctified soul is in no such danger of sinning as to
need the thorough use and application of all the means of grace to
prevent him from sinning, and to secure his continued
sanctification. (3.) Nor, do I mean by entire sanctification, a
state in which there will be no further struggle or warfare with
temptation, or in which the Christian warfare will cease. This
certainly did not cease in Christ to the end of life, nor will it
with any being in the flesh. (4.) Nor do I use the term as
implying a state in which no further progress in holiness is
possible. No such state is, or ever will be, possible to any
creature, for the plain reason, that all creatures must increase
in knowledge; and increase of knowledge implies increase of
holiness in a holy being. The saints will doubtless grow in grace
or holiness to all eternity. (5.) Nor do I mean by the term entire
sanctification, that the entirely sanctified soul will no longer
need the continual grace and indwelling Spirit of Christ to
preserve it from sin, and to secure its continuance in a state of
consecration to God. It is amazing that such men as Dr. Beecher
and others should suppose, that a state of entire consecration
implies that the entirely sanctified soul no longer needs the
grace of Christ to preserve it. Entire sanctification, instead of
implying no further dependence on the grace of Christ, implies the
constant appropriation of Christ by faith as the sanctification of
the soul.

But since
entire sanctification, as I understand the term, is identical with
entire and continued obedience to the law of God, and since I have
in lectures on moral government fully shown what is not, and what
is, implied in full obedience to the law of God, to avoid much
repetition in this place, I must refer you to what I have there
said upon the topics just named.

IV. Show
what the real question now at issue is.

1. It is not
whether a state of present full obedience to the divine law is
attainable in this life. For this has, I trust, been clearly
established in former lectures.

2. It is not
whether a state of permanent, full obedience has been attained by
all, or by any of the saints on earth.

3. But the
true question at issue is: Is a state of entire, in the sense of
permanent sanctification, attainable in this life?

If in this
discussion I shall insist upon the fact, that this state has been
attained, let it be distinctly understood, that the fact that the
attainment has been made, is only adduced in proof of the
attainability of this state; that it is only one of the arguments
by which the attainability of this state is proved. Let it also be
distinctly borne in mind, that if there should be in the
estimation of any one a defect in the proof, that this state has
been attained, still the integrity and conclusiveness of the other
arguments in support of the attainability will not thereby be
shaken. It is no doubt true, that the attainability of this state
in this life may be abundantly established, entirely irrespective
of the question whether this state has ever been attained.

Let me,
therefore, be distinctly understood as maintaining the
attainability of this state, as the true question at issue; and
that I regard the fact, that this state has been attained, only as
one method of proving, or as a fact that demonstrates its
attainability. Dr. Woods admitted the attainability of a state of
entire sanctification in this life, and contested only the fact of
its actual attainment. But he should not have admitted the
attainability, with his idea of what is implied in it, as has been
shown. For example, if, as he supposed, entire sanctification is a
state in which no further progress in grace or holiness is
possible, or in which there is and can be no Christian warfare or
struggle with temptation, he had no right to admit that any such
state as this is attainable in this life. I do not admit, but
utterly deny, that any such state is at all attainable in this
life, even if it is in any state of existence whatever.

But again:
While Dr. Woods admitted, that entire sanctification is attainable
in this life, he denied that it is attainable in any practical
sense, in such a sense, that it is rational to expect or hope to
make the attainment. He says we may attain it, but holds it to be
dangerous error to expect to attain it. We may or might attain it,
but we must not hope to attain it in this life. But how does he
know? Does the Bible reveal the fact that we never shall? We shall
see.

The true
question is, Is a state of entire, established, abiding
consecration to God attainable in this life, in such a sense, that
we may rationally expect or hope to become thus established in
this life? Are the conditions of attaining this established state
in the grace and love of God, such that we may rationally expect
or hope to fulfil them, and thus become established, or entirely
sanctified in this life? This is undoubtedly the true and the
greatly important question to be settled.

Let no one
throw fog and embarrassment over our inquiries, by doing as Dr. W.
has done; that is, by admitting and denying the attainability of
this state at the same breath; admitting it, to save his orthodoxy
with the new school, who maintain the doctrine of natural ability,
and denying it as a practical or practicable thing, to save
himself from the charge of perfectionism. It is certainly a grave
and most important question, whether we may rationally hope or
expect, ever in this life, to attain to such an established state
of grace, and faith, and love, or which is the same thing, to such
an established state of entire consecration, as to have done with
slipping, and falling, and sinning against the blessed God.
Certainly, the bleeding, yearning, agonized spirit of the saint
recently recovered from a fall, ought not to be tantalized with
metaphysical or theological quibbles, when it asks with agonizing
interest, "How long, Lord? Is there no hope that I can or shall
arrive, in this life, at a state in which, through mighty reigning
grace, I shall have done with abusing thee?" It appears to me
monstrous and barbarous to answer such a soul, as some have done,
by saying to him, You may attain such a state, but it is dangerous
error to expect ever to cease abusing God, while you live in this
world.

This
file is CERTIFIED BY GOSPEL TRUTH MINISTRIES TO BE
CONFORMED TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT. For authenticity
verification, its contents can be compared to the
original file at www.GospelTruth.net
or by contacting Gospel Truth P.O. Box 6322, Orange, CA
92863. (C)2000. This file is not to be changed in any
way, nor to be sold, nor this seal to be
removed.